It got ugly in San Diego at 3:30pm today

[mamaofami]

On our Eurodam TA this August, the boarding form was only one-page long.

 

Perhaps the fine mentioned might be one that has to do with the law concerning cruising from US-US port.

 

This might explain why on our cruise to No Where on the Eurodam, only one page printed out for the boarding pass and it didn't include the emergency contact numbers.

[UtterCaro]

I just did a test drive of this function on our booking. "Unknown" is the default answer for nationality. If you neglect to answer this question, you get a warning message but it allows you to continue.

"Please note: You have not yet completed this form, some data is still missing. Please scroll to the bottom of the page and click "Proceed". You may come back at a later time to complete this questionnaire and qualify for an Signature Preferred Boarding Pass."

 

When you look at the status of your check-in it shows as "saved only / edit", while a properly completed entry would show "complete / edit".

 

I suggest that a better word choice by HAL would be "incomplete / edit", but I'm not trying to excuse the folks who failed to show on time.

 

Thanks for the information. (I just double-checked mine, and it shows as "complete / edit," so I must not have missed anything.) I agree, if HAL's website team doesn't want to go to the trouble and expense of putting in a brake, they could at least make the status say "incomplete / edit" -- and the "incomplete" should be in bold red type. That should help.

 

Caro

[Taxguy7]

Also, when we received our documents there was a separate card in there noting the Homeland Security rules about the time to be onboard, and since we sailed from Vancouver (the rule doesn't even apply there) I would think that means HAL puts that paper in every ticket packet.

 

Even the best systems aren't immune from user error. I didn't find HAL's particularly difficult to follow or use -- to me the directions were clear and easy to follow. There is also the final fail safe of not letting the boarding pass print if the forms aren't complete, as the poster above me experienced --that was his/her cue go fix the error. I wonder if those denied boarding didn't try to print their boarding passes?

 

I just checked my packet and there is no notice (sailing from Lisbon).

I also read the 'Know before you go' book and found the 90 minute rule to be set in the same typeface as most of the 40 pages. Something that important should be stressed strongly to avoid much of this problem, which causes problems for HAL staff, heartache to pax and probably some loss of future business.

I am going to fill everything in, print everything I can, AND get to the ship very early!

[dj_crusin]

I just printed our boarding passes yesterday and they only have one page.

 

I have had the info completed for awhile but we were on a GTY. I just had TBA as a Cabin # and it would let me print the passes. As we were just assigned a cabin, I just filled in the Cabin # and reprinted them.

 

There are 3 steps and you can't print the boarding passes until all of the information is completed (with the above execption). I do believe the information can be filled in incorrectly, but that's not HAL's fault.

 

We've never had a problem.

[Snorkel2Much]

I just printed our boarding passes yesterday and they only have one page.

 

I have had the info completed for awhile but we were on a GTY. I just had TBA as a Cabin # and it would let me print the passes. As we were assignede a cabin just filled in the Cabin # and reprinted them.

 

There are 3 steps and you can't print the boarding passes until all of the information is completed (with the above execption). I do believe the information can be filled in incorrectly, but that's no HAL's fault.

 

We've never had a problem.

(bolding mine)

Thanks, that's the test I was looking for in Post #46.

[Snorkel2Much]

Wow, I don't think this could EVER happen to us and I'll tell you why. My husband ALWAYS makes sure that we are the FIRST ones in line to board the ship. It is so embarrassing. We lived close to NYC. For a 4 or 5pm departure, we have to get up at the crack of dawn. My daughters and I get so exasperated with him, he is like a little kid on Christmas morning. But godforbid, if something went wrong with the paperwork...he would immediatly blame me, he would never think to blame the cruise line system. It hasn't happened yet. On our next cruise with Hal, we are flying out one day ahead, DH would have liked to go 2 days ahead JUST TO BE SURE!

~Jo~

I know exactly how your husband feels about early boarding, I think we'd get along just fine. :cool:

 

See ya on the Rollcall thread. :)

[msmayor]

I just checked my packet and there is no notice (sailing from Lisbon).

I also read the 'Know before you go' book and found the 90 minute rule to be set in the same typeface as most of the 40 pages. Something that important should be stressed strongly to avoid much of this problem, which causes problems for HAL staff, heartache to pax and probably some loss of future business.

I am going to fill everything in, print everything I can, AND get to the ship very early!

 

Its all important, and unfortunately even when bolded or in larger typeface there are folks who just won't read it. They may not think its worth their time and effort to go through 'so much paperwork'.

 

Bold type or not, HAL or any cruiseline should not have to hold a passenger's hand to make sure they complete everything and get on board the ship on time to sail.

[u4ea]

I just checked my packet and there is no notice (sailing from Lisbon).

I also read the 'Know before you go' book and found the 90 minute rule to be set in the same typeface as most of the 40 pages. Something that important should be stressed strongly to avoid much of this problem, which causes problems for HAL staff, heartache to pax and probably some loss of future business.

I am going to fill everything in, print everything I can, AND get to the ship very early!

 

Look in your ticket book on page 2 :)

It's not a "notice" per se, but clear instructions.:cool:

Cya soon,(early;))

Mark...

[DrivesLikeMario]

About a dozen guests, some children, were denied boarding due to the "90 minute" rule.....EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD COMPLETED THEIR DOCUMENTS ONLINE, because apparently some did not put any reply in the "Nationality" space.

 

In a way, I'm glad they were denied boarding because they didn't follow the rules. It's on their documents about when to arrive at the port, so they were notified, they may have just chosen not to read them.

 

I tell people all the time to get to the port more than 90 mins. ahead of time and so often, I hear people say, "Oh, we'll be fine." :rolleyes:

[prescottbob]

That sounds terrible...

 

Can someone explain the $400 fine. I didn't realise there was a fine if you boarded at the 1st port of call. (Not that we EVER want to do that, but I sometimes wonder with connecting flights around the world getting in the way of things, I always think of a back up plan if we somehow miss the ship.)

 

Also, on our last cruise, we were contacted by HAL twice about minor things missing in our docs. We thought we had filled them in correctly, but evidently they were missing. Has HAL stopped checking these documents a few weeks prior to sailing?

 

:confused:

 

 

Ahoy!

 

It might have something todo with the PVSA (Passenger Vessel Service Act of 1886) which states:

 

"No foreign vessels shall transport passengers between ports or places in the United States, either directly or by way of a foreign port, under a penalty of $300 for each passenger so transported and landed."

 

 

Bon Voyage & Good Health! (and check-in early, if possible)

Bob:)

[Snorkel2Much]

Its all important, and unfortunately even when bolded or in larger typeface there are folks who just won't read it. They may not think its worth their time and effort to go through 'so much paperwork'.

 

Bold type or not, HAL or any cruiseline should not have to hold a passenger's hand to make sure they complete everything and get on board the ship on time to sail.

The selfish side of me agrees with you and the Darwin methodology for cruising. As in: I'd rather not cruise with a contingent of people who aren't capable of following important instructions.

 

The business side of me can see that it would be in HAL's best interest to sail with 100% full cabins, even if some cabins are filled by folks who need more help than you or I would need to get by. ;) JMO.

[RuthC]

Two other guests now have opted to pay to fly to Cabo San Lucas and pay the $400 per person fine,

On our Eurodam TA this August, the boarding form was only one-page long.

 

Perhaps the fine mentioned might be one that has to do with the law concerning cruising from US-US port.

Ahoy!

 

It might have something todo with the PVSA (Passenger Vessel Service Act of 1886) which states:

 

"No foreign vessels shall transport passengers between ports or places in the United States, either directly or by way of a foreign port, under a penalty of $300 for each passenger so transported and landed."

Attributing this "fine" to the Passenger Services Act doesn't make sense, as the PSA wouldn't apply here.

If the passengers are boarding in Cabo, and will disembark in San Diego, they will not have been "transported" from one US port to another without stopping at a distant foreign port.

Is it possible that David used the word "fine" loosely, meaning the cost of the flight to Cabo?

[CC Help Michell]

(bolding mine)

Thanks, that's the test I was looking for in Post #46.

 

And it was my experience, too (Post 50) -- it really does make me think that these folks never tried to print out their boarding passes or they'd have been unable to and fixed the error(s).

[Snorkel2Much]

And it was my experience, too (Post 50) -- it really does make me think that these folks never tried to print out their boarding passes or they'd have been unable to and fixed the error(s).

Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore you. I was just looking for someone to test the functionality as of today (or very recently). Software changes happen all the time and I was wondering if a bug had been recently introduced that let people print the passes with incomplete data. :)

[Taxguy7]

Its all important, and unfortunately even when bolded or in larger typeface there are folks who just won't read it. They may not think its worth their time and effort to go through 'so much paperwork'.

 

Bold type or not, HAL or any cruiseline should not have to hold a passenger's hand to make sure they complete everything and get on board the ship on time to sail.

 

You're right but boldface or indents help in reading even for us that do read instructions. Unfortunately there are people who show such lack of knowledge of their job or the world around them I wonder who guides them to work.:confused:

 

Look in your ticket book on page 2 :)

It's not a "notice" per se, but clear instructions.:cool:

Cya soon,(early;))

Mark

You SHOULD arrive... not too forceful and no notice of the deadline.

DW and I will be there, hotel checkout is at noon but we will probably checkout about an hour before that.:)

[prescottbob]

Attributing this "fine" to the Passenger Services Act doesn't make sense, as the PSA wouldn't apply here.

If the passengers are boarding in Cabo, and will disembark in San Diego, they will not have been "transported" from one US port to another without stopping at a distant foreign port.

 

Is it possible that David used the word "fine" loosely, meaning the cost of the flight to Cabo?

 

 

The Jones Act: A Hard Act to Follow (by Alan Walker)

 

It's A Long Way to Ensenada

 

First-time cruisers are unlikely to have heard of the "Jones Act," and even experienced cruisers may only be vaguely aware of some sort of "weird old law" that somehow controls whether cruise ships may (or may not) stop at US ports. But if you've ever had to take the five-hour bus ride from Los Angeles to Ensenada, or vice versa, at the start or end of a cruise, you will certainly have asked why you must suffer such an inconvenience - and the simple answer is, "it's the law."

Jones Misnomer

 

The US law that can make life difficult for a cruiser dates from 113 years ago, and is called the "Passenger Services Act," but Senator Wesley L. Jones, who sponsored a 1920 Merchant Marine Act amendment relating to the shipping of MERCHANDISE, not passengers, has unfairly been tagged as the author of the restrictions on what a foreign cruise ship may do or not do in US waters. The basic rule is that "foreign" ships may not carry passengers (whether Americans or others) between US ports, subject to certain exceptions.

Purpose

 

It's hard to disagree with the basic purpose of the Passenger Services Act (the "PSA") which the US Marine Administration Branch describes as "assuring reliable domestic shipping service that is completely subject to national control in times of war or national emergency." The Administration also states that "the money earned by these vessels remains in the national economy as opposed to being exported, while public revenues benefit from both corporate and personal tax receipts."

What's A Foreign Ship?

 

If you're cruising on a ship such as the Carnival Destiny, with 85% of the passengers being American, an American captain and officers, and an entertainment and cruise staff which is largely American, it's difficult to believe that this ship is "foreign." But check the ship's "registration" - on the stern of the ship and on the lifeboats, it will say "Panama" or "Monrovia" (capital of Liberia), or "Bahamas" or somewhere other than the USA - meaning that the ship is registered in that "convenient" country, and therefore not subject, among other things, to American employment standards or US income taxes, despite the fact that (in the case of the Carnival Destiny), its ultimate owner is Carnival Corporation, a publicly traded company on the US stock market.

All major cruise lines, including Royal Caribbean, Norwegian, Carnival, Princess, Holland America, Celebrity and Crystal, have "foreign-flagged" vessels. To be an "American-flagged" ship, the ship must be primarily fabricated in the US, totally assembled in the US, have an American crew and be registered in the US.

When Can Foreign Ships Cruise from US Ports?

 

You almost need to be an attorney to understand the precise regulations under the PSA. (Heck, I am an attorney and I still don't understand!) To make sense of the regulations, you need to know that non-US ports are classified as either "nearby foreign ports" or "distant foreign ports." Despite the name, a "nearby foreign port" means:

• any port in Canada
  
• any port in Mexico
  
• Bermuda
  
• any port in the Caribbean (except those in the Netherlands Antilles, such as Aruba and Curaçao)

A "distant foreign port" means any other port, except a U.S. port.

With those definitions in mind, here's what's allowed:

• A cruise which starts and ends in the same US port, visits a nearby or distant foreign port, and where no permanent disembarkation is permitted during the cruise at any US port (because there has been no transportation BETWEEN US ports (Huh?)
  
• A cruise between different US ports where no permanent disembarkation is permitted along the way, but at least one port is a nearby foreign port
  
• A cruise between US ports where permanent disembarkation IS allowed at a US port along the way, but only if the ship visits a distant foreign port and any permanent disembarkation takes place at a subsequent US port
  
• A "cruise to nowhere" from a US port where the ship travels beyond US territorial waters and keeps moving
  
• Any cruise which visits US ports but where no permanent disembarkation is allowed along the way and the cruise begins or ends at a distant or nearby foreign port

A reader paying careful attention at this point might say, "Hey, I can think of some cruises that don't fit into those exemptions." Well, that's because we haven't got to two more rules:

• The US Virgin Islands are presently exempt from the regulations, and may be treated as though its ports were "nearby foreign ports."
  
• Travel between the US mainland and Puerto Rico is allowed, provided that no eligible US vessel offers such service

The penalty for breaching the rules is a fine of $200 per passenger, even if the ship breaks the rules because of some emergency.

So, What's the Big Deal?

 

Suppose you were one of the passengers on the Statendam this year, going on the one-way cruise to Hawaii from San Diego (as opposed to the 16-day roundtrip). The round-trip cruisers got on and got off in San Diego, but the one-way passengers waved goodbye to the Statendam in San Diego, then hopped on a bus at the crack of dawn the next morning, bussed to Ensenada, Mexico, and then boarded the Statendam - all because of the PSA. The Statendam didn't even stay long enough for other passengers to go ashore for the day. Can such a silly routine make any sense?

While the unnecessary Ensenada bus ride if often cited as one of the negative aspects of the PSA, the really significant adverse effects of the PSA only become apparent when you think about some of the cruise itineraries which COULD be taken if it weren't for the PSA:

• San Diego to Seattle, and vice versa
  
• Fort Lauderdale to Boston, or the reverse
  
• Anchorage to Ketchikan, and vice versa
  
• New York - Bermuda - Fort Lauderdale, or the reverse
  
• Fort Lauderdale to Los Angeles (or the reverse), unless a "distant" foreign port (such as Aruba) is visited
  
• A cruise around the Hawaiian Islands (unless a "distant" port, such as somewhere in Kiribati, is visited)
  
• Boston to Miami
  
• Fort Lauderdale to Houston
  
• Seattle to Alaska ports (whether round trip or one way), unless a port in Canada is visited
  
• Bakersfield to El Centro

And a zillion others.

Friends of the PSA

 

There's no doubt that cruisers and cruise lines would like the PSA abolished because of the hundreds of new itineraries which would be possible without these restrictions. But if you're an American, you may need to look at the "big picture" of the economic benefits - or economic disadvantages- that the abolition or retention of the PSA legislation would bring (or keep bringing).

The major opponents of any changes in the existing legislation are US shipbuilders and maritime unions. According to the Sailors Union of the Pacific, "why should our coast be open to foreigners who pay no taxes and don't comply with US labor laws?." Until recently, such a comment might be met with the response that the purpose of the PSA - to encourage the building and manning of US passenger ships - has been entirely unsuccessful, as no major US passenger ship has been built in the last 40 years. But now we have the announcement that American Classic Voyages is building two 72,000-ton ships in the US for around-Hawaii cruises. According to a Forbes magazine article, however, "these luxuries [the new US-built cruise ships] come courtesy of the US taxpayer whose Maritime Administration is guaranteeing up to $1.1 billion in loans on the two-ship project." Another Forbes article describes the shipbuilding project as a "floating pork barrel," and points out that most foreign shipyards are subsidized by their respective governments, and thus American cruisers should be thanking the taxpayers in Europe or Asia for subsidizing their cruises (grin).

Foes of the Passenger Services Act

 

Whether or not one believes in the creation of US employment with the help of a taxpayers' subsidy, there are other financial costs of maintaining the PSA, according to its opponents. Chief among the opposition is the "Cruise America Coalition," an organization of public port authorities and tourism groups, whose members include the cities of Charleston, San Francisco, San Diego and Seattle. Port officials point out the huge amounts of money which are poured into port economies by visiting cruise passengers, and even more money is added to local businesses when a ship's itinerary is such that a US city is the port of embarkation or disembarkation. One estimate, for example, is that San Francisco would have three times the current 50 annual visits of cruise ships if the law were changed. The importance to a port of having a cruise ship based there may be seen from the recent agreement of Norwegian Cruise Lines to base the Norwegian Sky in Seattle for Alaska sailings starting next year (despite the PSA). The three-year agreement is expected to create nearly 400 new jobs, funnel $56 million into the Seattle economy, and generate $4.2 million in state and local taxes. Surrounding areas will also benefit when cruise passengers make side trips before and after their Alaska cruise.

The Seattle "Shunt"

 

The shunting of passengers by bus from Seattle to Vancouver is often wrongly used as an example of the absurd results that can happen through the enforcement of the PSA. The Seattle/Vancouver bus run, unlike the San Diego/Ensenada one, was caused by the lack of capacity in flights for cruise passengers starting their Alaska cruise in Vancouver. Seattle, great city as it is, just doesn't conveniently fit into the 7-day Alaska cruise schedule. To make the new Norwegian Sky itinerary from Seattle work, the Sky must miss a port (Ketchikan), as well as travel northward through the open seas instead of through the protected waters of the Inside Passage. There is no doubt, however, that Seattle would get more cruise ship calls (using new itineraries), if the cruise lines didn't have to comply with the PSA and have to visit a Canadian port on their Alaska sailings.

Cruise Lines' Attitude towards PSA Repeal

 

The main protagonists on the PSA issue - shipbuilders and seamen's unions on the one side, port authorities and tourism groups on the other side - are at least reasonably candid in admitting that they are fighting for their own economic interests - selfish or otherwise. Less candid are the major cruise lines, as evidenced by the public statements of their industry association, the International Council of Cruise Lines (ICCL). Despite the abundantly-clear advantages to the cruise lines in not being fettered by the PSA restrictions, ICCL says it "does not support modifications to the Passenger Services Act," and dismisses the opponents of the PSA as "a grass roots coalition." ICCL also states that "we understand the efforts of the coalition, but their goal is to help American cities, not the cruise operators." The real truth, in my view, is that ICCL cannot afford to lobby in favor of ANY changes in the PSA because the proponents of the existing PSA will quickly point out the lack of contribution by the cruise lines to the American economy in the way of corporate taxes and employment income from having American crews. ICCL is quick to point out, however, that a February 1999 study showed that the economic impact of its members' operations in the US for the previous year was $11.6 billion, with the creation of 176,000 US shoreside jobs.

Changes In the Wind?

 

Recent efforts to change the PSA have been unsuccessful despite vigorous attempts by Senators Thurmond and Murkowski in 1997, and Senator McCain in 1998. A 1999 Passenger Service Act Cruise Ship Reform Bill is expected to be introduced in the US Senate by Senator McCain early next month (August, 1999). It is anticipated that the bill will specify that foreign-flagged ships would be allowed to operate 200 days in US domestic shipping over the next six years, in return for paying US Federal and state income taxes. Stay tuned!

The Last Word

 

As a cruiser, I'm totally in favor of the abolition of the PSA. If I were an American, and I took off my "cruiser" hat, I'd ask for an analysis of the economic benefits of more American ports visited versus the economic contributions of passenger cruise ships being built in the US and manned by US crews.

 

 

Perhaps an attorney who visits the cc board might sort things out for the "great unwashed".

 

Bon Voyage & Good Health!

Bob:)

[RuthC]

The Jones Act: A Hard Act to Follow (by Alan Walker)

 

Perhaps an attorney who visits the cc board might sort things out for the "great unwashed".

Sort what out?

I can't figure out what your point was. And since you quoted me as part of your post I can't figure what my post has to do with yours.

[heavenly]

Attributing this "fine" to the Passenger Services Act doesn't make sense, as the PSA wouldn't apply here.

If the passengers are boarding in Cabo, and will disembark in San Diego, they will not have been "transported" from one US port to another without stopping at a distant foreign port.

 

Is it possible that David used the word "fine" loosely, meaning the cost of the flight to Cabo?

 

I agree with you, we have had passengers board and others depart in Cabo for various reasons with no problem. Now that I think about it, HAL would not be able to split the Oosterdam itinerary as they sometimes do into a 3 or 4 or 7 night cruise to accomodate Copper Canyon expeditions, those passengers board in Mazatlan to return to San Diego, if they would be in violation of the act.

[kayden]

And it was my experience, too (Post 50) -- it really does make me think that these folks never tried to print out their boarding passes or they'd have been unable to and fixed the error(s).

 

I am thinking this way too. I mean really, not *everyone* has or wants to have internet access. Maybe they just decided to forego the whole online check-in thing and risk it at the pier.

 

I just hope that in the end this thread gives some of those "last minute" cruisers an example of what is the worst that can happen.

[u4ea]

You SHOULD arrive... not too forceful and no notice of the deadline.

 

Agreed, clear, but not strong enough. HAL should have something in bold type, on the ticket, and that is pithy, that says something to the effect of:

ALL passengers MUST present yourself no later than 90 minutes before departure or you will be DENIED boarding!

That would remove the ambiguity and reasons for anger and argument. I know that info is in the paperwork/website, but if they add it to the ticket, it might help.

I wonder how often this happens? :confused:

Mark…

[prescottbob]

Sort what out?

I can't figure out what your point was. And since you quoted me as part of your post I can't figure what my post has to do with yours.

 

Ahoy Ruth!

 

I was just thinking about the PVSA and I thought you mentioed it in one of your posts. I guess that's why I used your quote.

 

I just was using the Walker article pointing out the distinction between "nearby" and "distant" ports:

 

"To make sense of the regulations, you need to know that non-US ports are classified as either "nearby foreign ports" or "distant foreign ports." Despite the name, a "nearby foreign port" means:

• any port in Canada
  
• any port in Mexico
  
• Bermuda
  
• any port in the Caribbean (except those in the Netherlands Antilles, such as Aruba and Curaçao)"

So as a non-attorney I read the PVSA (and various interpretations) and "got" that voyages by foreign vessels between two U.S. ports that include a distant foreign port, and round trip voyages from U.S. ports that include a nearby foreign port and other U.S. ports, do not violate the PVSA. Obviously I'm once again out to lunch.

 

So with that said, if the folks didn't really embark at a US port (as per letter of the law?) and embarked in a Mexico port ("nearby foreign port") and then debarked at a US port would it meet the letter of the law? Or would it violate the letter of the law and a fine could be possibly assessed?

 

I was just throwing it out. Curiousity mostly. No hard feelings here.

 

Time for a libation soon.

 

Bon Voyage & Good Health!

Bob:)

[Nutrioso]

HAL includes the booklet "Know Before You Go" in every document packet. On page 24, under the heading Important Notice: . . . . "at least 90 minutes before departure. Any guest who has not provided us with this information (personal guest information) by that time will be unable to sail with the vessel even if they arrive at the terminal before the vessel leaves". So, in my book, sufficient guidance was provided to the passengers by HAL. ---- Penny

[RuthC]

OK, Bob. I see what you're thinking. You're missing that the PSA doesn't come into play in this situation at all.

The Passenger Services Act pertains to foreign-flagged vessels transporting passengers between US ports. For it to apply the cruise must BOTH begin AND end in the US. If (dis)embarkation is in a foreign port there is no PSA consideration.

So, if the passengers embark in Cabo (Mexico) and disembark in San Diego, there is no PSA problem to consider.

The near/distant foreign port portions of the PSA apply when the passengers BOTH board and disembark in the US.

If the passengers board and disembark in the SAME city, and the ship has stopped anywhere, it must also stop at a near foreign port.

If the passengers board in one US city, and disembark in ANOTHER US city, the ship must stop at a distant foreign port.

Clearer now?

[JLC@SD]

As a cruiser, I'm totally in favor of the abolition of the PSA. If I were an American, and I took off my "cruiser" hat, I'd ask for an analysis of the economic benefits of more American ports visited versus the economic contributions of passenger cruise ships being built in the US and manned by US crews.

 

My understanding is that the PSA applies to air travel as well.....which is why you do not see Qantas flying from LA to NY or British Air flying NY to SF. Abolishing the PAS would open up the air routes inside the US from one US city to another US city.

[sail7seas]

You are correct. It applies to airlines as well which some say is the largest reason it has not been abolished. Some of us think it would be a great idea for it to no longer apply to cruise ships.